§

Wyndham Vacation Ownership d/b/a WorldMark by Wyndham

356 N.L.R.B. 765 (N.L.R.B. 2011)
Wyndham Vacation Ownership d/b/a WorldMark by Wyndham

12 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Transportation Management Corp.

    462 U.S. 393 (1983)   Cited 648 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the employer bears the burden of negating causation in a mixed-motive discrimination case, noting "[i]t is fair that [the employer] bear the risk that the influence of legal and illegal motives cannot be separated."

  2. Romano v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith

    487 U.S. 1205 (1988)   Cited 105 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Upholding conclusion that employees classified as department managers did not meet executive exemption

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc.

    662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981)   Cited 355 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "but for" test applied in a "mixed motive" case under the National Labor Relations Act

  4. Labor Board v. Burnup Sims

    379 U.S. 21 (1964)   Cited 106 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding violation of § 8 "whatever the employer's motive"

  5. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 80 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."

  6. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Caval Tool Division, Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.

    262 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 20 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the Board's holding that an employee engaged in concerted activity when he made statements about the company's new break policy at an employee meeting called by the employer to address the policy

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Mike Yurosek Son, Inc.

    53 F.3d 261 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that four employees who protested reduction in hours and then later refused a contradictory order to work longer hours engaged in concerted activity

  8. Prill v. N.L.R.B

    835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that an employee takes concerted action “when he acts with the actual participation or on the authority of his co-workers”

  9. El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    853 F.2d 996 (1st Cir. 1988)   Cited 10 times

    No. 87-1756. Heard March 8, 1988. Decided August 3, 1988. Carlos Bobonis Gonzalez with whom Bobonis, Bobonis Rodriguez Poventud, Santurce, P.R., was on brief for petitioner. Howard E. Perlstein, Supervisory Atty., with whom Rosemary M. Collyer, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief for respondent. Petition from the National Labor Relations Board. Before

  10. Rockwell Intern. Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    814 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 9 times
    Upholding the Board's conclusion that an employee engaged in concerted activity when she objected to the employer's noise lecture during an employee meeting arranged to discuss the issue